| Message ID | 1347013172-12465-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > Currently we have the cpuidle_device field in the acpi_processor_power structure. > This adds a dependency in processor.h for cpuidle.h. > > In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per cpu states > coming right after this patch, this one move out of the acpi_processor_power > structure the cpuidle_device field. Reword a little to make it easier to read: In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per-cpu states coming after this patch, this patch moves the cpuidle_device field out of the acpi_processor_power structure. > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > Tested-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > include/acpi/processor.h | 2 -- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > index de89624..084b1d2 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); > static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; > module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); > + > static int disabled_by_idle_boot_param(void) > { > return boot_option_idle_override == IDLE_POLL || > @@ -998,7 +1000,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr) > int i, count = CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START; > struct acpi_processor_cx *cx; > struct cpuidle_state_usage *state_usage; > - struct cpuidle_device *dev = &pr->power.dev; > + struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); > > if (!pr->flags.power_setup_done) > return -EINVAL; > @@ -1130,6 +1132,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_states(struct acpi_processor *pr) > int acpi_processor_hotplug(struct acpi_processor *pr) > { > int ret = 0; > + struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); > > if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) > return 0; > @@ -1145,11 +1148,11 @@ int acpi_processor_hotplug(struct acpi_processor *pr) > return -ENODEV; > > cpuidle_pause_and_lock(); > - cpuidle_disable_device(&pr->power.dev); > + cpuidle_disable_device(dev); > acpi_processor_get_power_info(pr); > if (pr->flags.power) { > acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr); > - ret = cpuidle_enable_device(&pr->power.dev); > + ret = cpuidle_enable_device(dev); > } > cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(); > > @@ -1160,6 +1163,7 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr) > { > int cpu; > struct acpi_processor *_pr; > + struct cpuidle_device *dev; > > if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) > return 0; > @@ -1190,7 +1194,8 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr) > _pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu); > if (!_pr || !_pr->flags.power_setup_done) > continue; > - cpuidle_disable_device(&_pr->power.dev); > + dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, cpu); > + cpuidle_disable_device(dev); > } > > /* Populate Updated C-state information */ > @@ -1204,7 +1209,8 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr) > acpi_processor_get_power_info(_pr); > if (_pr->flags.power) { > acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(_pr); > - cpuidle_enable_device(&_pr->power.dev); > + dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, cpu); > + cpuidle_enable_device(dev); > } > } > put_online_cpus(); > @@ -1221,6 +1227,7 @@ int __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init(struct acpi_processor *pr, > { > acpi_status status = 0; > int retval; > + struct cpuidle_device *dev; > static int first_run; > > if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) > @@ -1270,7 +1277,9 @@ int __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init(struct acpi_processor *pr, > * must already be registered before registering device > */ > acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr); > - retval = cpuidle_register_device(&pr->power.dev); > + > + dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); > + retval = cpuidle_register_device(dev); > if (retval) { > if (acpi_processor_registered == 0) > cpuidle_unregister_driver(&acpi_idle_driver); > @@ -1284,11 +1293,13 @@ int __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init(struct acpi_processor *pr, > int acpi_processor_power_exit(struct acpi_processor *pr, > struct acpi_device *device) > { > + struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); > + > if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) > return 0; > > if (pr->flags.power) { > - cpuidle_unregister_device(&pr->power.dev); > + cpuidle_unregister_device(dev); > acpi_processor_registered--; > if (acpi_processor_registered == 0) > cpuidle_unregister_driver(&acpi_idle_driver); > diff --git a/include/acpi/processor.h b/include/acpi/processor.h > index 8b2c39a..4d98ec8 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/processor.h > +++ b/include/acpi/processor.h > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/cpu.h> > -#include <linux/cpuidle.h> > #include <linux/thermal.h> > #include <asm/acpi.h> > > @@ -64,7 +63,6 @@ struct acpi_processor_cx { > }; > > struct acpi_processor_power { > - struct cpuidle_device dev; > struct acpi_processor_cx *state; > unsigned long bm_check_timestamp; > u32 default_state; > -- > 1.7.5.4 > > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Currently we have the cpuidle_device field in the acpi_processor_power structure. > This adds a dependency in processor.h for cpuidle.h. > > In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per cpu states > coming right after this patch, this one move out of the acpi_processor_power > structure the cpuidle_device field. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > Tested-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > include/acpi/processor.h | 2 -- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > index de89624..084b1d2 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); > static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; > module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); > + Well. Why are you moving that thing into the percpu memory? It doesn't have to be per-CPU and storing it there just wastes the room. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Currently we have the cpuidle_device field in the acpi_processor_power structure. > > This adds a dependency in processor.h for cpuidle.h. > > > > In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per cpu states > > coming right after this patch, this one move out of the acpi_processor_power > > structure the cpuidle_device field. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > > Tested-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > > include/acpi/processor.h | 2 -- > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > > index de89624..084b1d2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); > > static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; > > module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); > > + > > Well. Why are you moving that thing into the percpu memory? It doesn't > have to be per-CPU and storing it there just wastes the room. Sorry, it is per-CPU already, scratch that. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > Currently we have the cpuidle_device field in the acpi_processor_power structure. > > > This adds a dependency in processor.h for cpuidle.h. > > > > > > In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per cpu states > > > coming right after this patch, this one move out of the acpi_processor_power > > > structure the cpuidle_device field. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > > Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > > > Tested-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > > > include/acpi/processor.h | 2 -- > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > > > index de89624..084b1d2 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > > > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); > > > static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; > > > module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); > > > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); > > > + > > > > Well. Why are you moving that thing into the percpu memory? It doesn't > > have to be per-CPU and storing it there just wastes the room. > > Sorry, it is per-CPU already, scratch that. Well, no, it isn't. So I was right originally (boy, that code _is_ confusing). So originally you had per-CPU pointers called 'processors' that each pointed to a struct acpi_processor object created by acpi_processor_add() in slab memory. Your patch doesn't touch those pointers, so they are still there. In addition to them it creates a number of static per-CPU objects that previously were stored in those struct acpi_processor object mentioned above. These things need not be stored in percpu memory. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 09/08/2012 12:06 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Currently we have the cpuidle_device field in the acpi_processor_power structure. >>>> This adds a dependency in processor.h for cpuidle.h. >>>> >>>> In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per cpu states >>>> coming right after this patch, this one move out of the acpi_processor_power >>>> structure the cpuidle_device field. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>>> Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> >>>> Tested-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- >>>> include/acpi/processor.h | 2 -- >>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c >>>> index de89624..084b1d2 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c >>>> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); >>>> static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; >>>> module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); >>>> >>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); >>>> + >>> >>> Well. Why are you moving that thing into the percpu memory? It doesn't >>> have to be per-CPU and storing it there just wastes the room. >> >> Sorry, it is per-CPU already, scratch that. > > Well, no, it isn't. So I was right originally (boy, that code _is_ confusing). > > So originally you had per-CPU pointers called 'processors' that each pointed > to a struct acpi_processor object created by acpi_processor_add() in slab > memory. Your patch doesn't touch those pointers, so they are still there. Yes, the purpose of this patch is the same as the other patches which is separate the cpuidle code from the rest of the acpi code. It is part of the cleanup. > In addition to them it creates a number of static per-CPU objects that > previously were stored in those struct acpi_processor object mentioned above. > These things need not be stored in percpu memory. Agreed, this patch makes the cpuidle driver to consume more per cpu memory. Is it acceptable to create a per cpu pointer for the cpuidle devices which will be allocated in the processor_driver init function like the intel_idle driver ? We keep the same memory consumption while we are moving the cpuidle specific code the C file. By the way, most of the cpuidle drivers for ARM are defining a static cpuidle device structure per cpu. I guess your remark for acpi applies to them too. Not easy to make all these drivers to converge to the same code scheme ... Thanks -- Daniel
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/08/2012 12:06 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>>> Currently we have the cpuidle_device field in the acpi_processor_power structure. > >>>> This adds a dependency in processor.h for cpuidle.h. > >>>> > >>>> In order to be consistent with the rest of the drivers and for the per cpu states > >>>> coming right after this patch, this one move out of the acpi_processor_power > >>>> structure the cpuidle_device field. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > >>>> Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > >>>> Tested-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > >>>> include/acpi/processor.h | 2 -- > >>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > >>>> index de89624..084b1d2 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > >>>> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); > >>>> static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; > >>>> module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); > >>>> > >>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); > >>>> + > >>> > >>> Well. Why are you moving that thing into the percpu memory? It doesn't > >>> have to be per-CPU and storing it there just wastes the room. > >> > >> Sorry, it is per-CPU already, scratch that. > > > > Well, no, it isn't. So I was right originally (boy, that code _is_ confusing). > > > > So originally you had per-CPU pointers called 'processors' that each pointed > > to a struct acpi_processor object created by acpi_processor_add() in slab > > memory. Your patch doesn't touch those pointers, so they are still there. > > Yes, the purpose of this patch is the same as the other patches which is > separate the cpuidle code from the rest of the acpi code. It is part of > the cleanup. > > > In addition to them it creates a number of static per-CPU objects that > > previously were stored in those struct acpi_processor object mentioned above. > > These things need not be stored in percpu memory. > > Agreed, this patch makes the cpuidle driver to consume more per cpu > memory. Is it acceptable to create a per cpu pointer for the cpuidle > devices which will be allocated in the processor_driver init function > like the intel_idle driver ? We keep the same memory consumption while > we are moving the cpuidle specific code the C file. I'm not really sure what you mean hear, care to elaborate? > By the way, most of the cpuidle drivers for ARM are defining a static > cpuidle device structure per cpu. I guess your remark for acpi applies > to them too. Yes, it does. Percpu memory is limited and should only be used for things that really need to be stored there. > Not easy to make all these drivers to converge to the same code scheme ... I agree, but then I'm not sure it's a problem if they are slightly different. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c index de89624..084b1d2 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ module_param(bm_check_disable, uint, 0000); static unsigned int latency_factor __read_mostly = 2; module_param(latency_factor, uint, 0644); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, acpi_cpuidle_device); + static int disabled_by_idle_boot_param(void) { return boot_option_idle_override == IDLE_POLL || @@ -998,7 +1000,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr) int i, count = CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START; struct acpi_processor_cx *cx; struct cpuidle_state_usage *state_usage; - struct cpuidle_device *dev = &pr->power.dev; + struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); if (!pr->flags.power_setup_done) return -EINVAL; @@ -1130,6 +1132,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_states(struct acpi_processor *pr) int acpi_processor_hotplug(struct acpi_processor *pr) { int ret = 0; + struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) return 0; @@ -1145,11 +1148,11 @@ int acpi_processor_hotplug(struct acpi_processor *pr) return -ENODEV; cpuidle_pause_and_lock(); - cpuidle_disable_device(&pr->power.dev); + cpuidle_disable_device(dev); acpi_processor_get_power_info(pr); if (pr->flags.power) { acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr); - ret = cpuidle_enable_device(&pr->power.dev); + ret = cpuidle_enable_device(dev); } cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(); @@ -1160,6 +1163,7 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr) { int cpu; struct acpi_processor *_pr; + struct cpuidle_device *dev; if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) return 0; @@ -1190,7 +1194,8 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr) _pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu); if (!_pr || !_pr->flags.power_setup_done) continue; - cpuidle_disable_device(&_pr->power.dev); + dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, cpu); + cpuidle_disable_device(dev); } /* Populate Updated C-state information */ @@ -1204,7 +1209,8 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr) acpi_processor_get_power_info(_pr); if (_pr->flags.power) { acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(_pr); - cpuidle_enable_device(&_pr->power.dev); + dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, cpu); + cpuidle_enable_device(dev); } } put_online_cpus(); @@ -1221,6 +1227,7 @@ int __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init(struct acpi_processor *pr, { acpi_status status = 0; int retval; + struct cpuidle_device *dev; static int first_run; if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) @@ -1270,7 +1277,9 @@ int __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init(struct acpi_processor *pr, * must already be registered before registering device */ acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr); - retval = cpuidle_register_device(&pr->power.dev); + + dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); + retval = cpuidle_register_device(dev); if (retval) { if (acpi_processor_registered == 0) cpuidle_unregister_driver(&acpi_idle_driver); @@ -1284,11 +1293,13 @@ int __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init(struct acpi_processor *pr, int acpi_processor_power_exit(struct acpi_processor *pr, struct acpi_device *device) { + struct cpuidle_device *dev = &per_cpu(acpi_cpuidle_device, pr->id); + if (disabled_by_idle_boot_param()) return 0; if (pr->flags.power) { - cpuidle_unregister_device(&pr->power.dev); + cpuidle_unregister_device(dev); acpi_processor_registered--; if (acpi_processor_registered == 0) cpuidle_unregister_driver(&acpi_idle_driver); diff --git a/include/acpi/processor.h b/include/acpi/processor.h index 8b2c39a..4d98ec8 100644 --- a/include/acpi/processor.h +++ b/include/acpi/processor.h @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/cpu.h> -#include <linux/cpuidle.h> #include <linux/thermal.h> #include <asm/acpi.h> @@ -64,7 +63,6 @@ struct acpi_processor_cx { }; struct acpi_processor_power { - struct cpuidle_device dev; struct acpi_processor_cx *state; unsigned long bm_check_timestamp; u32 default_state;